Gigabit Wi-Fi chips emerge, will power super-fast home video streaming

The first chips capable of powering Gigabit per second speeds are starting to …

The first wireless networking chips capable of powering gigabit-per-second speeds using the forthcoming IEEE 802.11ac standard are starting to emerge, with routers and other consumer networking products expected to launch in the second half of 2012. With speeds three times faster than the current generation of Wi-Fi routers, the new products will speed up synchronization between home devices and greatly improve the quality of in-home audio and video streaming, according to Gigabit Wi-Fi vendors.

Broadcom and Quantenna are among the first to announce Gigabit Wi-Fi chips, and expect them to be used in routers, set-top boxes and PCs. Smartphones and tablets will also eventually have chips supporting the 802.11ac standard, Broadcom says. More products based on the standard are expected to be on display at the International CES expo in Las Vegas next week.

The 802.11ac standard is still officially in draft form, and working its way through the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). It uses the 5GHz band, rather than the 2.4GHz band relied upon by today's 802.11n (although 11n actually uses both). Routers using chips from Broadcom and others are expected to support both standards, and seamlessly switch between them as needed.

But 802.11ac isn't the only gigabit-speed wireless technology about to hit the market. A companion technology using the 60GHz frequency band is also in the works at the Wireless Gigabit Alliance (or WiGig), and will power speeds of 7 Gigabits per second, as we've noted in previous coverage—but only across short distances. These devices can potentially replace HDMI and other cables, but will only work across devices in the same room, while 802.11ac routers will power the whole home. WiGig technology from the likes of Wilocity is expected to be on display at CES.

"As you go up the spectrum there is a tradeoff between throughput and range," notes Kelly Davis-Felner, marketing director of the Wi-Fi Alliance, a trade group that certifies devices to ensure interoperability and compatibility with IEEE standards. The Wi-Fi Alliance will certify devices on both the 5GHz and 60GHz spectrum. Rather than competing against each other, Davis-Felner says wireless vendors envision homes powered by 5GHz routers but with "Islands" of 60GHz connectivity.

"5GHz and 60GHz will both have an interesting and exciting future, but they really aren't substitutes for one another," she said, noting that 60GHz technology could have interesting applications for gaming.

Broadcom is sampling the chips with hardware partners, will demonstrate their capabilities at CES, and begin wider-scale distribution in the next several months. Asus, Belkin, Buffalo, D-Link Systems, Lenovo, LG, Microsoft, Motorola, Netgear and others were all quoted in the Broadcom announcement.

Rahul Patel, VP of marketing in the wireless LAN business at Broadcom, said to expect hardware partners to ship consumer devices based on Broadcom's new chips in the second half of this year. The first routers will likely cost between $129 and $199, depending on the configuration, with entry-level devices eventually offering a lower price, he said.

Escaping a crowded spectrum

802.11ac and the 5GHz spectrum will offer numerous technical benefits, Patel argues. The 2.4 spectrum is crowded not only with Wi-Fi devices but Bluetooth, baby monitors, microwaves, cordless phones, and more. 5GHz is less crowded while offering many more available channels. Still, the 2.4GHz spectrum offers greater range, a limitation vendors are trying to overcome.

"The laws of physics favor 2.4GHz for range. There is no two ways about it," Patel said. "But despite having the range benefits, it is kind of a shared medium and there is only so much you can do when you're limited by the number of channels available."

Patel goes even further and says devices using Broadcom chips will have as much as double the actual range of today's 802.11n devices, because of technology improvements like beamforming, which compresses signals to make them more powerful. Beamforming will also be used heavily in WiGig. If you're storing high-definition video content on a DVR or hard drive and want to stream it to a television in another room, "you would potentially benefit dramatically by having higher-performing Wi-Fi," he said.

Broadcom is calling its technology 5G Wi-Fi, or fifth-generation, not to be confused with 4G cellular networks. Whatever term they use, Broadcom says the "increased speed enables consumers to download Web content from a mobile device faster and quickly synch large files, such as videos, in a fraction of the time it would take on a similar 802.11n device," and that power savings will occur because devices that download data faster will enter low-power mode much earlier. Because 802.11ac transmissions start out faster than those from current devices, someone standing 30 feet from an 802.11ac access point will get the same data throughput as if they were standing 10 feet from an 802.11n transmitter, Broadcom claims.

Patel also believes there will be benefits to businesses. Although Gigabit Wi-Fi isn't going to replace 10 Gigabit Ethernet networks, businesses may see super-fast Wi-Fi as an alternative to Gigabit Ethernet connections, particularly because it makes smartphones and tablets in business settings more viable, he said.

Early adopters, beware

Any 802.11ac router that hits the market anytime soon will carry some risk for consumers, because the first devices to ship will be based on a draft version of the standard. While the Wi-Fi Alliance will begin testing implementations in the summer, the actual certification program won't be launched until the end of this calendar year.

"You will see products ship this year that we have not certified," Davis-Felner says. The same happened with 802.11n, and it did create problems, she notes. "Back in 2005, 2006, people were building pre-standard equipment and selling it and it was not delivering on the user experience." The biggest problem is interoperability—devices built by different vendors not connecting to each other.

Davis-Felner expects the process to go much more smoothly this time. Vendors have learned their lesson and are on board with the cooperation needed to make devices work together, she said. Additionally, the draft of the 802.11ac standard circulating today is more mature than the 11n draft that was available when vendors started shipping products based on that standard.

Draft devices sold to consumers may need software updates after the final standard hits. Then again, they may work perfectly well, making it unnecessary.

"The companies shipping products are also really active in the Wi-fi Alliance," she said. "So its not like there's some huge information disconnect. The Broadcoms and Qualcomms of the world know what's emerging from Wi-Fi Alliance work." After the final specification becomes available, "they may or may not opt to issue upgrades or updates to in-field products at that time. That's kind of a vendor decision."

Davis-Felner notes that there's no reason to stop using 2.4GHz. But devices may use that spectrum for tasks like e-mail and Web browsing and reserve 5GHz for heavier-duty tasks. "I don't have any reason to think [2.4] is ever going away," she said. "It's great spectrum. It's spectrum that has worked very well for the last 12 or 13 years."

The Wi-Fi Alliance and others believe it will be a couple of years before 802.11ac-based products become the leader in shipments. ABI Research says 802.11ac will be the dominant Wi-Fi protocol by 2014, with most devices sold containing dual-band chipsets supporting both 11ac and 11n. While releasing its research in September, ABI said "Established Wi-Fi chipset vendors such as Broadcom, Intel, Qualcomm Atheros, and Texas Instruments will attempt to maintain or grow their share of the market by transitioning as fast as possible."

Of course, none of these improvements will be worth anything at all as long as there is a glaring security hole in WPS.

I agree. The entire Internet is worthless and we should just get rid of it until routers get fixed from an exploit that takes half a day to do, making it unreasonable for people just passing by trying to break into random Wi-Fis.

It'll be interesting to see the real-world performance. N is already (theoretically) waaaaay more than is needed for streaming HD video. Although, perhaps FF and Rew will work better, assuming devices can deal with decoding at a ludicrous rate.

As for businesses, faster wifi means diddly squat for tablet and smart phone users. Am I missing something? How does faster wifi make them more viable? We seem to being doing just fine with abgn nodes all around the building. Hell, smartphones and tablets could get by on g. One thing is for sure, nobody in this company is clambering for faster tablet and smartphone wifi.

Not to poo-poo something that is faster and better, but are home wi-fi networks really all that clogged already? I have no problem streaming an HD signal from my computer to my TV over my existing network. I suppose that it might start choking if we tried streaming TWO HD signals at the same time, but that's never happened yet. Plus, it's not like our internet connection is even remotely close to maxing out our wi-fi bandwidth.

Sure, in an office environment, this should be great. In the home? I don't see a compelling need to upgrade until my router dies.

What adds to the impact is the parallel development of cable companies as Western Canada's Shaw Cable has announced, shut out of spectrum auctions and too late into the mobile game putting these wifi access points soon capable of over 1 GBs, everywhere you see a cable amp. The cost is tiny compared to a conventional wireless mobile system and will allow dirt cheap smartphone based data/VOIP.

The only time you'll need to use worthless spectrum wasting offerings from the phone company will be in rural areas.

Public power utilities of course could offer 1 GB/s wired/wireless access for pennies if they allowed broadband signals to be piggybacked on the fiber optic plant they are running into every neighborhood in the country for smart meter programs. Unfortunately the politicians that control them are of course paid off with campaign donations and such by the same Big Telecom interests.

Municipalities, community organizations, hacker groups, and coops could easily take advantage of the 60 Ghz offering 802.11ad which can easily move data a kilometer or so in an open air hop as do current commercial offerings, offering another dirt cheap way of putting at least 1 GigE of wireless on every sq block.

This doesn't mean much unless companies like Directv and Comcast adopt these. The real problem is not speed but unwillingness of corps to incorporate new tech into their products because of fear of pirating. If i could own only 1 BR player and stream it to any TV that would make it so much easier. But then i wouldn't be buying 3 players. All this tech does is make me want to pirate stuff just so i can control how i want to watch it.

Not to poo-poo something that is faster and better, but are home wi-fi networks really all that clogged already? I have no problem streaming an HD signal from my computer to my TV over my existing network. I suppose that it might start choking if we tried streaming TWO HD signals at the same time, but that's never happened yet. Plus, it's not like our internet connection is even remotely close to maxing out our wi-fi bandwidth.

Sure, in an office environment, this should be great. In the home? I don't see a compelling need to upgrade until my router dies.

Not to poo-poo something that is faster and better, but are home wi-fi networks really all that clogged already? I have no problem streaming an HD signal from my computer to my TV over my existing network.

Provide the bandwidth and people will come up with ways to use it. That's never been a problem. Typical usage won't grow, but eventually it won't be uncommon to stream everything wirelessly to all of the devices in your home.

This doesn't mean much unless companies like Directv and Comcast adopt these. The real problem is not speed but unwillingness of corps to incorporate new tech into their products because of fear of pirating. If i could own only 1 BR player and stream it to any TV that would make it so much easier. But then i wouldn't be buying 3 players. All this tech does is make me want to pirate stuff just so i can control how i want to watch it.

Out of curiosity, why do DirecTV and Comcast need to adopt these? It seems more of an upgrade to the part of the network in your home than the part owned by telcos, etc. It's a way to add more bandwidth as people seem pretty fond of laptops and tablets these days which make it less feasible to depend on your friendly wired home network. More available bandwidth means I can stream Netflix in multiple rooms, stream more media from my home server, and do faster and more frequent backups without running into bottlenecks. Like I mentioned, it's less of an issue for my wired devices but and increasing number of households seem to be moving to all (or almost all) laptops and tablets which aren't really built to be wired up frequently.

This doesn't mean much unless companies like Directv and Comcast adopt these. The real problem is not speed but unwillingness of corps to incorporate new tech into their products because of fear of pirating. If i could own only 1 BR player and stream it to any TV that would make it so much easier. But then i wouldn't be buying 3 players. All this tech does is make me want to pirate stuff just so i can control how i want to watch it.

Out of curiosity, why do DirecTV and Comcast need to adopt these? It seems more of an upgrade to the part of the network in your home than the part owned by telcos, etc. It's a way to add more bandwidth as people seem pretty fond of laptops and tablets these days which make it less feasible to depend on your friendly wired home network. More available bandwidth means I can stream Netflix in multiple rooms, stream more media from my home server, and do faster and more frequent backups without running into bottlenecks. Like I mentioned, it's less of an issue for my wired devices but and increasing number of households seem to be moving to all (or almost all) laptops and tablets which aren't really built to be wired up frequently.

Wouldn't it be nice if your game console, TV receiver, etc. could sit in a closet and stream wirelessly to any and every TV in your home?

It'll be interesting to see the real-world performance. N is already (theoretically) waaaaay more than is needed for streaming HD video. Although, perhaps FF and Rew will work better, assuming devices can deal with decoding at a ludicrous rate.

As for businesses, faster wifi means diddly squat for tablet and smart phone users. Am I missing something? How does faster wifi make them more viable? We seem to being doing just fine with abgn nodes all around the building. Hell, smartphones and tablets could get by on g. One thing is for sure, nobody in this company is clambering for faster tablet and smartphone wifi.

NetZero called and is waiting for you to subscribe to their dial-up. Why should you pay $35 a month for cable internet, NetZero is only $10 and it works just fine!

I guess I should probably just make the point that if the pervasive attitude was "what we got is good enough" then we'd all still be on NetZero.

Out of curiosity, why do DirecTV and Comcast need to adopt these? It seems more of an upgrade to the part of the network in your home than the part owned by telcos, etc.

I don't see a reason. I'm looking for a good wireless HDMI type of solution at a reasonable price. If I could plug my video source into a 802.11ac device and do the same thing at each TV in my house and get a nice 1080p image I'd be pretty happy. My house is ten years old and has plenty of coax in the walls that I use to distribute SD video but I'm still waiting for a good HD video distribution method.

Not to poo-poo something that is faster and better, but are home wi-fi networks really all that clogged already? I have no problem streaming an HD signal from my computer to my TV over my existing network. I suppose that it might start choking if we tried streaming TWO HD signals at the same time, but that's never happened yet. Plus, it's not like our internet connection is even remotely close to maxing out our wi-fi bandwidth.

Sure, in an office environment, this should be great. In the home? I don't see a compelling need to upgrade until my router dies.

It's one thing if you're in a standalone home with some distance to other people's networks. If you're in an apartment and all your neighbors are also running wi-fi, it's funny how things slow down...

Try when Gigabit connections even exist at all outside the most populous major US cities. I'm in my state capital. There are 2 or 3 residential ISPs, neither of which offer anything faster than 7 megabit down 1/2 megabit up (advertised speeds). To get anything faster requires traveling 200 miles. FiOS or anything faster than DSL does not exist on a majority of the populated US landmass.

Even N wireless is utterly pointless anywhere within 200 miles of my locale for a consumer.

I'm pretty sure you might want more bandwidth once 4K TVs (like this one: http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/28/lg-u ... ng-to-ces/) and gigabit internet connections are more common. Both of which are just on the horizon like 802.11ac.

I'm pretty sure that by the time these "ultra" TVs are both affordable for mere mortals and in wide use, my existing router will need to be replaced anyways. I was thinking more along the lines of the next 5 years or so.

Quote:

Provide the bandwidth and people will come up with ways to use it. That's never been a problem. Typical usage won't grow, but eventually it won't be uncommon to stream everything wirelessly to all of the devices in your home.

Possibly. I just don't see how I'll be streaming between the devices that are all right now attached to my TV. With the invention of HDMI and a single cord between device and TV, I'd say just using the cord is a whole lot easier than going into the settings on each device, "typing" in a password on a klunky remote, and getting them networked. Half of the stuff currently attached to my TV is wi-fi enabled. But since the router is right there too, they're all hard wired to avoid any wireless flake-outs.

This doesn't mean much unless companies like Directv and Comcast adopt these. The real problem is not speed but unwillingness of corps to incorporate new tech into their products because of fear of pirating. If i could own only 1 BR player and stream it to any TV that would make it so much easier. But then i wouldn't be buying 3 players. All this tech does is make me want to pirate stuff just so i can control how i want to watch it.

Out of curiosity, why do DirecTV and Comcast need to adopt these? It seems more of an upgrade to the part of the network in your home than the part owned by telcos, etc. It's a way to add more bandwidth as people seem pretty fond of laptops and tablets these days which make it less feasible to depend on your friendly wired home network. More available bandwidth means I can stream Netflix in multiple rooms, stream more media from my home server, and do faster and more frequent backups without running into bottlenecks. Like I mentioned, it's less of an issue for my wired devices but and increasing number of households seem to be moving to all (or almost all) laptops and tablets which aren't really built to be wired up frequently.

Wouldn't it be nice if your game console, TV receiver, etc. could sit in a closet and stream wirelessly to any and every TV in your home?

Sure, it would be "nice", but do you really want to futz with RF's fickle nature when your game console, receiver, massive bigscreen TV, etc will likely be parked in a relatively static position within easy reach of a cable that's all-but-immune to external interference and signal-strength concerns?

I know it will never happen, but I wish the FCC would open up some other frequency for ISM use. Maybe some of the many many Hz up around 3.1 Ghz dedicated to radio location? Which of those systems are in active use? Can any of them be moved to different frequencies or replaced by something to free up a couple hundred Mhz for Wireless data? Are some of them for stuff like deep sea navigation bouys that aren't likely to be affected by land based low power wireless networking anyway?

Are there any hazardous effects related to signals at 5 GHz and 60 GHz?

Not if you wear your tinfoil hat.

Come on, it's a serious question. A microwave oven works at 2.4 Ghz. I am curious to know what would happen at 5 and 60 GHz.

Poor example. They (microwaves) are also non-ionizing, so while they can burn you they can't cause cancer. It can burn because of the high-power at which the frequency is emitted. It's not intrinsic of the frequency itself.

It'll be interesting to see the real-world performance. N is already (theoretically) waaaaay more than is needed for streaming HD video. Although, perhaps FF and Rew will work better, assuming devices can deal with decoding at a ludicrous rate.

As for businesses, faster wifi means diddly squat for tablet and smart phone users. Am I missing something? How does faster wifi make them more viable? We seem to being doing just fine with abgn nodes all around the building. Hell, smartphones and tablets could get by on g. One thing is for sure, nobody in this company is clambering for faster tablet and smartphone wifi.

NetZero called and is waiting for you to subscribe to their dial-up. Why should you pay $35 a month for cable internet, NetZero is only $10 and it works just fine!

I guess I should probably just make the point that if the pervasive attitude was "what we got is good enough" then we'd all still be on NetZero.

Eh?

Everything in the world can be improved upon. The question is, when and for what is improvement demanded.

For example, it would be possible to develop a wired interconnect with less lag between keyboard button presses and the corresponding on screen response. My bet is that nobody cares because it is "good enough".

We just finished upgrading our abgn network and even that wasn't motivated by performance. Rather it was motivated by signal coverage, authentication capabilities, and ease of administration. There's no way we are upgrading it again anytime soon and this is likely a common business sentiment. The upgrade would need to be motivated by an actual need or benefit.

I could probably make up some obscure scenarios where tablet and smart phone users need more wifi bandwidth (in business), but the scenarios would be fairly contrived. In the real world, the upgrade isn't needed by the vast majority of business tablets and smart phones.

This isn't to say that the technology shouldn't be developed and integrated into products. Rather, I'm just questioning the spurious link to tablet and smartphone users in business.

Glad to see that a single frequency was picked for ac. The 2.4/5Ghz n issue was an utter debacle. Even if you preferred to use 5 on your router, it took a lot of research to find devices that would connect to it.

Maybe we'll finally have a wireless standard that bests 100Mb ethernet. I couldn't get n to do it.

I'm pretty sure you might want more bandwidth once 4K TVs (like this one: http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/28/lg-u ... ng-to-ces/) and gigabit internet connections are more common. Both of which are just on the horizon like 802.11ac.

I'm pretty sure that by the time these "ultra" TVs are both affordable for mere mortals and in wide use, my existing router will need to be replaced anyways. I was thinking more along the lines of the next 5 years or so.

5GHz==worthless for anything but use in the same room. Seriously check out any of the performance data at small net builders, even using a huge 3 antenna external setup once you leave the same room performance drops to the single digit Mbps level if you're lucky (many spots around his house have no coverage from any router/AP using 5GHz).